STETHS, Lacovia, Munro set up interesting finale in ISSA/FLOW daCosta Cup

first_imgWESTERN BUREAU:The big three in Group E of the 2015 ISSA/FLOW daCosta Cup, St Elizabeth Technical High School (STETHS), Munro College and the ever-improving Lacovia High, all logged important victories to keep the group wide open with one round of matches remaining to decide who will move into the inter-zone round.In the meantime, unbeaten Manchester High continued their relentless form in a thoroughly one-sided 20-0 drubbing of Winston Jones High.STETHS again proved rather difficult to break down when playing at home, as found out by the visiting B.B. Coke High team in a heavy 4-0 defeat.Victory moved them to 18 points, still second behind Lacovia (19), who edged Maggotty High 1-0. Munro, who won 2-0 at Newell, are third on 16 points.Hot striker Michael ‘Diddy’ Kerr hit a brace for STETHS either side of the half-time break, while there was a goal apiece from Shawn Genus and Demar James.”We needed goals and these three points, and we got them in another positive display of controlled football,” declared STETHS’ coach, Omar Wedderburn.”I am satisfied with what we did today and now we are looking to Saturday for another three points, and I hope it will be good enough to top the group,” he added.Saturday will be a tell-all for the teams in Group E, with STETHS facing Newell, Munro meeting Lacovia and B.B. Coke taking on Maggotty.Meanwhile, St James High are celebrating a minor accomplishment for topping Group A, after their 3-0 win over Green Pond High, which earned them their 14th point, two more than Cornwall College.Yesterday’s resultsManchester 20 Winston Jones 0St James 3 Green Pond 0Lacovia 1 Maggotty 0Newell 0 Munro 2STETHS 4 B.B. Coke 0Green Island 2 Frome 1Knox 1 Spalding 2Godfrey Stewart 1 Maud McLeod 0Little London 0 Petersfield 6Lennon 3 Kellits 0Ewarton 1 Dinthill 0Thompson Town 2 Edwin Allen 1last_img read more

First software developers could AB test the pric

first_imgFirst, software developers could A/B test the pricing of their premium product to see which price converts more. But either way, doing so won’t have much impact on revenue since higher prices would result in a drop in sales, and lower prices won’t bring in as much as possible. Second, software developers could display in-software advertisements to make money. Typically, they’re displayed on the top or bottom of the screen and are not intrusive. But they occupy valuable screen space and are considered to be ineffective. Third, software developers could offer cross-promotion advertisements during the installation flow. This could generate massive revenue, but if not set up correctly might frustrate users. Fourth, software developers could put their product on a monthly subscription-based model. But once again, this requires upfront payment. Last, they could offer in-app purchases like their mobile app cousins. But it’s not guaranteed this will make up the deficit.Clearly, each solution has its benefits and disadvantages. In the end, I suggest that software developers deploy a healthy mix of the above monetization strategies. By adopting a few strategies that work well together, software developers can improve their chances of making increased revenue. It’s important, however, that developers seriously research their space, their target audience, and their competitors. In considering which business model to pursue, developers should ask themselves:Is my software engaging enough for people to use it often?How willing are users to pay an up-front fee for my software?How do competitors in my space monetize their software, and how successful are their strategies?This will help narrow the list down. For example, while free apps reach the majority of users who tend to be price-sensitive and almost never purchase software, there is a subset of users who prefer to avoid advertising and seek paid versions of their favorite products. Which type are your users?In the meantime, software developers should consult the five options for monetizing their products. However, it would be best if, going forward, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft lessen their ecosystem restrictions and offer more sustainable software monetization solutions. This could even the playing field and open up opportunities for aspiring developers. What’s your opinion on the matter? Is there a specific solution that has worked best for you? Let me know in the comments. The software monetization industry is at a crossroads today. In contrast to mobile app developers who have a variety of app monetization methods to choose from, software developers often struggle to build out solid monetization strategies. This, coupled with the challenge of software discovery and distribution, drastically hinders software developers’ ability to churn out new versions and continuously produce great products. In the end, this inability to fund projects not only harms software developers but the greater technology environment, which depends on the advertising revenue as well. It’s rare for consumers today to pay for applications—both mobile and desktop. It’s estimated that only about 1% of users actually purchase paid versions of applications, while the remaining 99% download the free versions instead. In cases like this, mobile app publishers typically rely on advertising, in-app purchases, or subscription fees to float the 99% of non-paying users. Facebook and Google are also helpful for this type of mobile app marketing. However, neither of the giants provide viable solutions for desktop software companies looking to make money from their products or distribute it in a cost-effective way to the masses. Microsoft, on the other hand, offers software monetization solutions, encouraging software developers to upload their product to the Windows 10 store. But Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, who together count for the majority of advertising budgets, confine and restrict developers to their respective ecosystems. There is a growing need for diversification, sustainable, and unique solutions in the software monetization market. Until then, software developers can choose from the following five monetization solutions: last_img read more